Since I am almost always the last person to find out what everyone else already knows, friends and acquaintances say “what kind of journalist are you” in astonishment.
I keep my distance from politicians and bureaucrats and the corridors of gossip. And anyway I don’t keep my ear to the ground.
I live a very solitary life.
Let me even share a secret with you. Most of my time is devoted to “drama.” I tackle at least 100 pages every week. It sounds easy.
Our heroes, too, are not real but a figment of the imagination.
Whenever I tear myself away from fiction and look at real life, I am often confused and faced with the question of “how real is real life.”
To be honest, this does prove to be advantageous at times.
For instance, when everyone was full of praise for the Taraf newspaper, I was convinced it was a project.
Everybody had turned up their noses and called it the ravings of a mad man when years ago I had written that people like Hasan Cemal or Murat Belge possessed temperaments that would see them back a coup when the time and place was right.
I am not an expert on the Middle East but I wasn’t fooled in the slightest when the specter of the Arab Spring or the Syria issue surfaced.
I am not mentioning all this to brag about myself of course.
Anyway, no sane person (unless they want to engage in a bit of self-deprecation) would be prone to say, “Look how precise my conclusions are; how much foresight I possess.”
All I want to say is there are certain advantages to looking at realities from a distance and being so intertwined with fiction!
How unfortunate that sometimes I get so confused that I fail to understand anything!
For instance, a government that states it is fighting against the parallel gang doesn’t allow the ambassador appointed to one of Europe’s most important countries (no need to mention it) from carrying out his duties. (The parallel organization is a term used to refer to the Fethullah Gülen-led movement.)
In recent days, the resignation (whatever the reason) of MIT (National Intelligence Organization) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan has confused me.
I have only seen images of Hakan Fidan on television and in newspapers. I don’t even know what he sounds like.
For people that have the same political leaning as me, any mention of MIT would make our hairs stand on end.
Was it in Vedat Türkali’s novel titled “Bir Gün Tek Başına” where a militant committed suicide just for being accused of being a member of MIT?
Having any sort of link to MIT, or even praising MIT, was considered the greatest betrayal for us. It was considered the sort of betrayal that led to suicide!
Two things changed our view about Hakan Fidan:
The first was the response by Ehud Barak, the defense minister of the terrorist state of Israel, who said, “Oh dear! We are losing MIT!” as soon as Fidan was appointed to the MIT Undersecretariat.
The second was that we came from the same political background as the prime minister of the time, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who had appointed him i.e. we were kindred spirits and the same as each other.
In short… Hakan Fidan was the MIT undersecretary of New Turkey, whose architect is our president.
He was the man who distanced MIT from being an institution that sold information to Mossad and operated like a subcontractor of the CIA.
This was also why he was targeted.
The racist Zionist network brought its minions into play on Feb. 7, 2012. They were burning with the desire to place handcuffs on Hakan Fidan’s wrists in order to make themselves more loved by the “country they loved to the South.”
Hakan Fidan’s crime was to attempt to make MIT, which was an institution that was putrefied and rickety in every aspect, a real “national” organization.
Hakan Fidan’s crime was to move the “Kurdish issue” from Oslo to Ankara in his efforts to attain the peace act of the century.
Hakan Fidan’s crime was to fight against “Mossad’s parallel members.”
We, too, were “infatuated” with this crime.
So, what happened?
Hakan Fidan resigned from his post at a time when ploys and ruses are being attempted full-swing to derail the resolution process, during a period when parallel members have formed the most mind-boggling alliances in their quest for revenge, and given that the chiefs of the terrorist state of Israel have made no secret of their unease with his being MIT undersecretary.
What’s this all about?
Was Hakan Fidan’s post not as critical as we had imagined it to be, or is the Dec. 17, 2013 coup of betrayal achieving its goal in an entirely different manner and we are not aware of it?
Let me say it right now…
If the debate about a presidential system is shelved after the elections, it would mean that the Dec. 17 coup of betrayal will have achieved its goal through other means.
